Some very basic stuff... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Terminus -> Some very basic stuff... (6/7/2006 8:48:36 PM)

Plus, I get to open a new room![:D]

If you want full functionality of the weapons you put into units you build, tread carefully. Two examples:

- The Recon Helicopter Unit Type makes it impossible to set Ground Support (or any other offensive mission) for the unit. Thus, if you fill a unit of that type up with armed helicopters (and even the Light Recce Helo has weapons) they won't be able to use them. Thus, DON'T USE THAT UNIT TYPE!!!

- The program apparently looks at the first weapon system put into a unit when determining said unit's range. Case in point: there's at least one arty battalion in the Market Garden 44 scenario, attached to XXX Corps, where the first weapon system assigned to it is the Achilles TD. That means the whole unit, even though it has longer range tube artillery assigned, CAN NOT fire beyond range 0, essentially making it useless at its job. The distribution matters.



watchtower -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/7/2006 9:06:42 PM)

Terminus, Nice one. Would be good if this thread was used for you vet designers to post valuble tips for us who are willing but clueless. Little tips like Terminus's can save a lot of time and confusion for the rest of us. And hey, one day you may be able to play my hypothetical "Invasion of the Mental Metal Chicken monsters AD2010 scenario" that is formulating in my tiny mind.



JAMiAM -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/7/2006 9:28:14 PM)

Actually, the recon helicopter has a very nice function. Fly it over enemy terrain to reveal units that are in its flight path. Just keep in mind that it can not actually land in enemy territory, so the flyovers need to be well planned, and over "bulges" in the enemy lines.



Terminus -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/7/2006 9:48:47 PM)

Yeah, they can do recce. I'm not saying they can't. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't stuff one of those units with gunships because they can't do any offensive missions.



golden delicious -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/8/2006 2:02:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
- The program apparently looks at the first weapon system put into a unit when determining said unit's range.


No. The range displayed will be that of the longest-ranged peice, and artillery at least will fire with whatever units can reach the hex.

The problem you are encountering is with unit icons. Only certain unit icons can fire at range. In the example, the unit (86 FA) has an armoured anti-tank icon, so cannot make direct long range attacks.



lok -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/8/2006 6:28:06 PM)

I am not sure about the air units but when I had arty units (e.g. towed arty) mixed in with SSM (e.g. FROG missile) I thought you could make long range strikes using the missile range but rest of the arty does not fire.

Actually SSM strikes against airfields are deadly (perhaps too deadly given that SCUD, FROG and other older SSM are not very inaccurate). They can destroy many planes on the ground. They are much more effective than air strikes.



JAMiAM -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/8/2006 6:33:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lok

I am not sure about the air units but when I had arty units (e.g. towed arty) mixed in with SSM (e.g. FROG missile) I thought you could make long range strikes using the missile range but rest of the arty does not fire.

Technically, for both air and artillery they "fire" but with 0 effectiveness. That is, they expend supply the same and are counter-targetted the same, but add no strength to friendly attacks. It's not a good idea to mix divergently ranged equipment in air units, in particular, as it gets very deadly for the outranged equipment.



PaulWRoberts -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/8/2006 9:58:17 PM)

Will we see corrected scenarios as these issues are discovered?



JAMiAM -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/8/2006 10:10:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

Will we see corrected scenarios as these issues are discovered?

These issues have been known for a few years. Whether the original designers want to revisit their scenarios will depend greatly on them, and their level of interest. Of course, beginning designers can also "cut their teeth" by revising existing scenarios that have been abandoned by their creators. You may not always be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but you can usually put together a pretty decent drawstring bag for your marble collection...[;)]



Terminus -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/9/2006 12:29:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
- The program apparently looks at the first weapon system put into a unit when determining said unit's range.


No. The range displayed will be that of the longest-ranged peice, and artillery at least will fire with whatever units can reach the hex.

The problem you are encountering is with unit icons. Only certain unit icons can fire at range. In the example, the unit (86 FA) has an armoured anti-tank icon, so cannot make direct long range attacks.


Hmmm, so both things quoted by me are examples of the same problem? Interesting...



golden delicious -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/9/2006 3:02:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Technically, for both air and artillery they "fire" but with 0 effectiveness. That is, they expend supply the same and are counter-targetted the same, but add no strength to friendly attacks. It's not a good idea to mix divergently ranged equipment in air units, in particular, as it gets very deadly for the outranged equipment.


Did you actually establish definitively how outranged aircraft fight? I recall running a test a while back which seemed to indicate that they participated normally (and erroneously) in attacks.



a white rabbit -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (6/25/2006 12:20:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Actually, the recon helicopter has a very nice function. Fly it over enemy terrain to reveal units that are in its flight path. Just keep in mind that it can not actually land in enemy territory, so the flyovers need to be well planned, and over "bulges" in the enemy lines.


..aircraft used to do that in toaw1, i remember the arguements when i suggested it as a valid use for air units...

..ahh, the good old days



Moriturus -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (10/13/2006 7:48:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lok


Actually SSM strikes against airfields are deadly (perhaps too deadly given that SCUD, FROG and other older SSM are not very inaccurate). They can destroy many planes on the ground. They are much more effective than air strikes.



Indeed. I was astounded at the devastation that the North Korean SSMs and ICBMs did to ROK airfields on the first turn of Korea 2005. Now, is there a way to reduce their accuracy?



golden delicious -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (10/13/2006 8:59:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moriturus

Indeed. I was astounded at the devastation that the North Korean SSMs and ICBMs did to ROK airfields on the first turn of Korea 2005. Now, is there a way to reduce their accuracy?


You could slash the proficiency of the units in question.



Moriturus -> RE: Some very basic stuff... (10/14/2006 9:14:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moriturus

Indeed. I was astounded at the devastation that the North Korean SSMs and ICBMs did to ROK airfields on the first turn of Korea 2005. Now, is there a way to reduce their accuracy?


You could slash the proficiency of the units in question.


Thank you! [&o]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375